aula_choice_answer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations it discloses the key mutation semantics: the call replaces the previous answer rather than appending, an empty list deletes the answer, `deshabilitada` options are already full, and some choices are locked after the first submission. This aligns with and enriches destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true rather than merely restating them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short paragraphs that are front-loaded with the core action, then preconditions, then the confirmation rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return ("Devuelve cómo quedó la elección"), the source of the option ids, the irreversibility risk, and the required user-confirmation step. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning: `opciones` is a full-replacement set (not incremental), an empty array erases the answer, multiple ids are only valid when the activity permits, and `direccion` comes from the module opened via aula_open.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb and resource ("Responde una elección") and distinguishes its two modes: choice (quick polls) and choicegroup (signing up for a group/commission), each with a concrete example. No sibling tool overlaps this resource, but the description never names a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Las opciones salen de `eleccion` al abrir el módulo con aula_open" supplies the prerequisite and the sibling that must run first, and the confirmation instruction gives a hard procedural rule before calling. It falls short of a 5 because it warns that many choices cannot be changed (`puedeCambiar: false`) without stating whether the call should then be skipped or simply flagged to the user.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.